Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: As presented in the proposal, the landscapes included in it are part of important conservation hotspots: Chocó and Andes Tropicales, including protected areas and Awá binational corridor and Chiles - Mataje corridor. Including KBA approach, the area is important for endemic and threatened species. amenazadas y endémicas en el país.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Relativelly low value globally, considering the irrecoverable carbon estimates.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The Awá Federation seems to be evolutioning in organization, mobilization and oficial recognition, but considering the difficults, threats and challenges, the Federation seems to face true challenges to do a good and well structured governance at scale.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: I felt a better description about the cultural significance. As far as I can understand, there is a huge pressure over communities, including cultural impacts driving communities to change some aspects of their livelihoods and affecting good mobilization to generate a stronger participatory governance systems. Cultural elements worked in a more strong way, would be interesting to strenght the process to create a more effective governance. Then is important to be more clear the importance of cultural aspects.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Considering the threats growing fast in the region and changes related to local production patterns due increase of cattle ranching and logging, and seeing wht is presented in Global Forest Change map, I consider a relativelly medium to high threats to the area if not related to strenght governance and management is done.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Seeing all the information presented, a very well stablished plan to strenght governance and management over the proposed area is crucial to local Awá leadershio move foward. I understand they already have a good and important recognition in therms of land uses and in cultural therms.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: I understood from the text presented that there is some political ant technical support and including some levels of government agencies involvement in Awá Federation efforts. Then, there is a good potential to move on to strenght governance and management through some of the proposed activities.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Awá Federation has a solid history of mobilizations and coordination of a series of interesting projects and initiatives and I understand they have been evolving well in recent years in different and complementary ways, having a well stablished basis to scalling up to creat a strong governance system.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: I believe yes, they already are implementing actions related to ecotourism, sustainable management and protection of territory. The challenge now is how to implement a management and governance plan to link all activities and includes production activities to promote sustainability in livelihoods and agriculture/cattle ranching and other subsistence activities.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Yes, is a well based proposal including strenghtening of IPLCs led by Awá Federation, considering the main line is protection and conservation of traditionally occupied land, including ecosystem services
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The proposal is pretty ambicious and includes a series of inter-related line of actions. But is not clear the link to a previous Plan, already existed and briefly mencioned. In a detalied proposal, will be important to better define what is objectives and what would be better to be sub-objective or activities. The Updated Plan, for instance, would be an objective and includes a series of actions listed. This Plan, well done, would includes zonning, rules, protections, education, communication, etc, to guide pilot activities through the years, including fund raising during the following years.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: I understand once the objectives and actions are better structured, the proposal would contributes in a significant way to accomplish good results on related threats.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The proposal presents a large list of objectives and related actions demanding each one an impressive quantity of work and engagement of many people (technicians, leaders, community members, etc) and I think the organization could have difficulties to deliver all the proposed products considering the available ammount. In my view, the proposal will demands at least a value close to the maximum cover and maybe will be necessary to review the objectives/actions for this. So, an exercise to review objectives and activities would be good to a better planning, trying to prioritize actions to focus on what is relevant for this phase of Federation activities to construct a good basis and then some secondary actions would be consider to be made in a second project or phase.
Evidence B:According to the EoI.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Considering the Awá Federation already has about US$ 400k per year and has support from government agencies and local governments, I believe they have a significant existing budget to co-financing the actions proposed. But of course, considering the possibility to them to get the total offered ammount for 5 years and considering to cut/reformulate actions/objectives to fit better.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: the proposal includes an area over 40,000 ha.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: I felt a lack of a more robust list of cultural/livelihoods indicator. For me, indicator is always better when measurable, e.g.: at least 30 women participating in decision making processes etc…, or at least 150 people capacitated in one year of project. I felt a lack of some project activities, for instance, the ecotourism activities, and felt a lack of mentioning cultural and livelihoods aspects to be considered in a more strong way in the listed indicators.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: As presented, I understand the sustainability of this proposal will be assured for other potential policies and initiatives, but in my view, this sustainabilitty will be directly linked to good results from the proposed activities and good governance and fund raising proceedures to be done in paralel, not assured by now, but with a good potential, considering the words presented.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Despite the proposal presents a worry about a gender perspective and necessity to strenght this approach, I felt the preesentation of a well based list of activities related to this approach. It is crucial to plan clear activities to ensure a gender perspective close to local communities, activelly doing and incentivating a gender based protagonism in all expected activities.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA